Monticello Live

This document was recently filed in the Drew County circuit clerk’s office in response to PF Mays and associates lawsuit against the city of Monticello, all of its city council members and mayor.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The City of Monticello, Arkansas; Zackery Tucker, Mayor to the City of Monticello; Al Peer, Member of the Monticello City Council; Carolyn Brown, Member of the Monticello City Council; Raymond Hubbard, Member of the Monticello City Council; Paige Chase, Member of the Monticello City Council; Claudia Hartness, Member of the Monticello City Council; Beverly Hudson, Member of the Monticello City Council; Joe Meeks, Member of the Monticello City Council; and Cedric Leonard, Member of the Monticello City Council, by its counsel, The Barton Law Firm, and for its Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, states:

I. Summary Judgment Standard.
Summary judgment shall be rendered if the Apleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 56 (c). Once the movement makes a prima facie showing entitlement to summary judgment, the respondent must meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a material fact.
The Arkansas Supreme Court no longer considers summary judgment to be a drastic remedy; it is simply one of the tools in a trial court’s efficiency arsenal. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to expeditiously determine cases without the necessity of a formal trial where there is no substantial issue of fact.

II. Discussion.
The City advertised for bids for a contract to provide economic development services to The City. This advertisement was on or about November 12, 2014, for services for calendar year 2015. A true and correct copy of the advertisement is attached as Exhibit A1 (included in court filings)
That The City received two bids. The bid of the Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit A.
The contracts were presented to Monticello City Council on or about December 18, 2014. At that time, the City Council elected to award the contract to MEDC. Among the reasons stated by council members voting to award the contract to MEDC was that the MEDC bid was for the provision of services that MEDC had been providing to The City for several years, and which were not included in either the advertisement for bids or the bid package of Plaintiff. It is recognized that the bid of Plaintiff is approximately 5.9 percent lower than the bid of MEDC. Among the services provided by the MEDC contract not included in Plaintiff’s proposal was the employment of a person to serve as property inspector for the City of Monticello.
On or about December 23, Mayor Joe Rogers vetoed the action of the Monticello City Council.
At a special meeting of the Monticello City Council held on or about December 29, 2014, the City Council affirmed its prior decision. On or about December 30, 2014, Mayor Rogers vetoed that action as well.
A true and correct copy of the veto of Mayor Rogers of the actions of the City Council in awarding the contract to MEDC on December 18, 2014 is attached as Exhibit A4″.
The veto of Mayor Rogers of the actions of the City Council on December 29, 2014 affirming its prior action is attached as Exhibit A5. On January 1, 2015, Zackery Tucker became mayor of Monticello, succeeding Mayor Rogers.
At a special meeting of the Monticello City Council held on or about January 7, 2015, Mayor Tucker announced that he was recommending to the Council that the City of Monticello should treat its economic development services as professional services, as allowed by Arkansas Code Ann. 19-11-801 et seq. On that date, the Monticello City Council passed a resolution rejecting the prior bids of both Plaintiff and MEDC received in response to the advertisement for bids of October 2014. The resolution also authorizes the mayor to seek statements of qualifications for the provision of the professional services for the provision of economic development services to the City of Monticello. A true and correct copy of this resolution of the Monticello City Council is attached as Exhibit A6.
The City proceeded to solicit statements of qualification for the provision of economic development services. A true and correct copy of the same is attached as Exhibit A7.
This solicitation was published in the Advance Monticellonian, a newspaper having a general publication in Drew County, Arkansas. A true and correct copy of the proof of publication is attached as Exhibit A8.
Plaintiff did not submit a statement of qualifications to be considered.
MEDC did submit a statement of qualifications to be considered. A true and correct copy of MEDC=s statement of qualifications is attached as Exhibit A9.
The Monticello City Council met in regular session on January 27, 2015. This was the first meeting of the Monticello City Council that the vetoes of Mayor Rogers of December 23, 2014 and December 30, 2014 could be considered.
At the City Council’s regular meeting of January 27, 2015, the matter of Mayor Rogers= vetoes of the Council=s actions of December 18, 2014 and December 29, 2014 were placed before the Council. There was no motion nor any action taken by the Council to override Mayor Rogers= vetoes. Therefore, the vetoes of Mayor Rogers were sustained.
At its regular Council meeting on January 27, 2015, the City Council considered the statement of qualifications of MEDC. Based upon the recommendation of Mayor Tucker, the review of the statement of qualifications and other matters and proof properly before the City Council, the City Council voted to award the professional services contract for the provision of economic development services to MEDC. A true and correct copy of the resolution of the Monticello City Council is attached as Exhibit 10.
Subsequently, the City of Monticello entered into a contract with MEDC for the provision of economic development services, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A11.
III. Statutory Authorization.
Monticello Code Section 2-106 specifically empowers the City Council to reject any and all bids received pursuant to an advertisement for bids.
Arkansas Code Annotated authorizes The City, as a city of the first class, to make provision for professional services by a statement of qualifications in lieu of a bid procedure. Economic development services is authorized as a professional service pursuant to the statement of qualifications procedure.

Mayor Rogers vetoed the action of the City Council in awarding the contract to MEDC on December 18, 2014. Pursuant to the provisions of Arkansas Code Annotated 14-43-504(2), that veto could only be considered by the Council at its next regular meeting, which was held on January 27, 2015. At that time, the matter was presented to the City Council and there was no motion made to override Mayor Rogers’ veto. Therefore, Mayor Rogers’veto stood, and there was no award of contracts pursuant to the bid procedure that was initiated by the advertisement from November 12, 2014.
The Arkansas Code Annotated 19-11-801 et seq specifically authorizes professional services, to include economic development services, to be considered by a statement of qualifications. Provisions of that statute have been complied with by The City.
Plaintiff submitted no statement of qualifications to be considered in that review process.
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted,
Whit Barton

This entry was posted on Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 7:58 am and is filed under City. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.